Friday, June 27, 2008

Chewing over 'Eat that?'

Viewpoints, Outlook

June 26, 2008, 7:46PM LETTERS Chewing over 'Eat that?'

Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

Editorial was wrong

The June 19 editorial "Eat that?" was nothing but a mouthpiece for anti-meat and vegetarian groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Beef producers don't condone inhumane treatments like those shown in the videos that HSUS released in February. For the Chronicle to imply that we employ such practices is just plain wrong.

As beef producers and members of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, we strive to pro-vide consumers with a safe product that we raise responsi-bly. To assume anything less is an insult to more than 15,000 ranchers and the hard-working families and employees who support them.

DAVE SCOTT first vice president, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, Richmond

Inspection failures

I had to reply to the letter "U.S. deserves 'safest' label," by reader Andrew Liu in his response Monday to the editorial "Eat that? / Agriculture secretary's reassurance rings hollow in light of current industrial beef processing." That editorial was a long time coming and a breath of fresh air, compared to the "junk science" the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have been feeding us for years.

The FDA and USDA have failed us at every turn, from the failed, partial and voluntary mad cow feed ban of Aug. 4, 1997, to the infamous failed June 2004 enhanced BSE surveillance program, where the testing and surveillance protocols were blundered from the beginning to the end, and still are to this day.

Liu spoke of only three mad cows documented in the United States, two of which were of the "atypical BSE" in Alabama and Texas. Atypical BSE is a more virulent strain than the typical United Kingdom BSE. Simply put, if you don't look, you will not find. The USDA knows this, and this is why testing was shut down to almost nothing after the last two atypical BSE cases were found. It simply did not want to document any more cases.

In one sentence Liu stated, "while it might be true that U.S. cows are poorly inspected." He also said "the fact is in terms of actual cases of mad cow disease, the United States has only had three infected cows." Well, one might figure that the only three documented cases to date of mad cow in the United States might be due to the fact that "U.S. cows are poorly inspected." Ya think?



Eat that? Agriculture secretary's reassurance rings hollow in light of current industrial beef processing, Stop the Madness


June 19, 2008, 8:42PM

Eat that? Agriculture secretary's reassurance rings hollow in light of current industrial beef processing

Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer recently assured Americans that USDA inspectors check "every single" processed American beef carcass. Charitably put, his statement is highly misleading. USDA inspections are perfunctory and fall far short of checks performed by other countries' meat watchdogs.

The issue arose after South Korea agreed this April to lift most of the restrictions it had placed on U.S. beef imports. That prompted intense protests by South Koreans who say they fear mad cow disease in U.S. beef. They want their government to negotiate a tougher deal or to scrap it.

In Texas last week touring meat processing plants, Secretary Schafer defended domestic meats as safe.

"Every single carcass that's processed is inspected by a USDA inspector," Schafer told reporters in San Antonio. "That beef is stamped A-OK, and we want to assure our consumers here in the United States, as well as our consumers ... in foreign countries, that we provide a good, clean, safe, abundant food supply here."

But what exactly is entailed in that inspection? According to the USDA, a government inspector is on site whenever cows are slaughtered and processed. The inspectors are supposed to look at every carcass and determine whether the meat is fit for human consumption. Basically, they have a look and maybe a sniff and a feel. That's it.

But even that cursory process might be more than consumers are actually getting. The Web abounds with reports, including firsthand accounts and interviews with reputable news organizations, in which USDA inspectors complain that they can't possibly carry out their job in a meaningful way. There are too few of them to deal with the number of cattle slaughtered each hour in modern meat-processing facilities.

The speed with which cattle are killed, skinned and cut up in these plants makes the job dangerous for the meat processors, to say nothing of inspectors who attempt to get close enough to a side of beef for a poke and a sniff. The high speed of operations sometimes does not allow cows to be properly stunned and bled to death by the time the skinning and cutting begins. That's not only cruel and inhumane, but also detrimental to food safety. Struggling animals mean meat falling on filthy floors, improper evisceration that spills feces onto meat and greater opportunities for cross-carcass contamination.

The shortage of inspectors also means that a USDA employee cannot always be available to inspect animals before they are killed to ensure that so-called downer cows are not processed. Cattle that cannot walk into the slaughterhouse because they are diseased or injured are more likely to be animals that carry bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly known as mad cow disease.

In February, the Humane Society of the United States released videotapes showing meat workers shocking nonambulatory cows, bumping them with forklifts and otherwise abusing them to force them onto their legs long enough to be certified for slaughter.

That's why many American consumers are voting with their pocketbooks for better meats. They are turning to local farmer's markets for cruelty-free meats from pasture-raised animals, forgoing meat from industrially raised cows, chickens and pigs that spend their lives packed into filthy cages, fed unhealthy diets and pumped full of antibiotics and hormones.

Increasingly available at local farmer's markets is beef from cows that are butchered humanely and in small numbers. As one farmer at Houston's Bayou City Farmer's Market put it one recent Saturday morning, "These are cows who have just one bad day."

Given the alternative practiced in processing plants, it's no wonder many foreign buyers of U.S. meat products are skeptical. Industrial beef producers employ practices that can be, in a word, repulsive. Until 1997, the United States permitted feeding cattle on beef waste products. It tested very few animals for mad cow disease, even though Europe was testing 10 million of its cattle each year, and the Japanese were testing each one. USDA allowed downer cattle into the food supply, a practice now banned. A 2004 ban on feeding cow's blood mixed with formula to calves and chicken droppings to cows was never put into practice.

According to The New York Times, the Agriculture Department has been fighting a lawsuit from a Kansas beef producer over the department's refusal to allow it to test for mad cow disease so that the producer can resume beef shipments to Japan.

None of this is reassuring. Instead of spouting empty rhetoric that U.S. beef is "the safest in the world," the USDA owes it to consumers to guarantee that meat meant for their dinner plates is processed without unnecessary cruelty and with standards that will produce a clean product that's safe to eat.

SINCE THEN, out just yesterday ;

----- Original Message ----- From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." <flounder9@VERIZON.NET> To: <BSE-L@LISTS.AEGEE.ORG> Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:47 AM Subject: [BSE-L] Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials

-------------------- BSE-L@LISTS.AEGEE.ORG --------------------

Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials


Congressional and Public Affairs (202) 720-9113 Peggy Riek

WASHINGTON, June 26, 2008 – Beltex Corporation, doing business as Frontier Meats, a Fort Worth, Texas, establishment, is recalling approximately 2,850 pounds of fresh cattle heads which may contain specified risk materials (SRMs), the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.

SRMs are tissues that are known to contain the infective agent in cattle infected with BSE, as well as materials that are closely associated with these potentially infective tissues. Therefore, FSIS prohibits SRMs from use as human food to minimize potential human exposure to the BSE agent.

The products subject to recall include: Cases of "BEEF WHOLE HEAD." Each shipping package bears the establishment number "EST. 7041B" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well as a package code of "51904" or "63922."

The company is recalling all products packed between May 31, 2007, and June 24, 2008. These products were distributed to retail establishments and lunch carts in the Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas, area.

The problem was discovered by the State of Texas officials during a routine inspection at a retail establishment.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall should contact the company Sales Department at (817) 624-1136.

Consumers with food safety questions can “Ask Karen,” the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


Thursday, June 26, 2008

Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

FDA BSE/Ruminant Feed Inspections Firms Inventory Report Texas Legend Ranch OAI 05/10/2008

In 2007, in one weekly enforcement report, the fda recalled 10,000,000+ pounds of BANNED MAD COW FEED, 'in commerce', and i can tell you that most of it was fed out ;


Date: March 21, 2007 at 2:27 pm PST REASON Blood meal used to make cattle feed was recalled because it was cross-contaminated with prohibited bovine meat and bone meal that had been manufactured on common equipment and labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement. VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 42,090 lbs. DISTRIBUTION WI

REASON Products manufactured from bulk feed containing blood meal that was cross contaminated with prohibited meat and bone meal and the labeling did not bear cautionary BSE statement. VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE 9,997,976 lbs. DISTRIBUTION ID and NV


Subject: MAD COW FEED RECALL USA SEPT 6, 2006 1961.72 TONS IN COMMERCE AL, TN, AND WV Date: September 6, 2006 at 7:58 am PST

snip... see listings and references of enormous amounts of banned mad cow protein 'in commerce' in 2006 and 2005 ;

see full text ;

Friday, April 25, 2008

Substances Prohibited From Use in Animal Food or Feed [Docket No. 2002N-0273] (Formerly Docket No. 02N-0273) RIN 0910-AF46



Thursday, June 26, 2008

Texas Firm Recalls Cattle Heads That Contain Prohibited Materials


-------------------- BSE-L@LISTS.AEGEE.ORG --------------------

Please remember, the last two mad cows documented in the USA i.e. Alabama and Texas, both were of the 'atypical' BSE strain, and immediately after that, the USDA shut down the testing from 470,000 to 40,000 in the U.S. in 2007 out of about 35 million cattle slaughtered. also, science is showing that some of these atypical cases are more virulent to humans than the typical UK BSE strain ;

***Atypical forms of BSE have emerged which, although rare, appear to be more virulent than the classical BSE that causes vCJD.***

Progress Report from the National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center

An Update from Stephen M. Sergay, MB, BCh & Pierluigi Gambetti, MD

April 3, 2008

In this context, a word is in order about the US testing program. After the discovery of the first (imported) cow in 2003, the magnitude of testing was much increased, reaching a level of >400,000 tests in 2005 (Figure 4). Neither of the 2 more recently indigenously infected older animals with nonspecific clinical features would have been detected without such testing, and neither would have been identified as atypical without confirmatory Western blots. Despite these facts, surveillance has now been decimated to 40,000 annual tests (USDA news release no. 0255.06, July 20, 2006) and invites the accusation that the United States will never know the true status of its involvement with BSE.

In short, a great deal of further work will need to be done before the phenotypic features and prevalence of atypical BSE are understood. More than a single strain may have been present from the beginning of the epidemic, but this possibility has been overlooked by virtue of the absence of widespread Western blot confirmatory testing of positive screening test results; or these new phenotypes may be found, at least in part, to result from infections at an older age by a typical BSE agent, rather than neonatal infections with new "strains" of BSE. Neither alternative has yet been investigated.

IF BSE is not in the USA (just not documented for many different reasons), and only atypical BSE is in the USA (plus CWD, plus, many strains of Scrapie, and Now the Nor-98 documented in 5 different states, plus TME, then why would human mad cow in the USA look like the UK nvCJD from UK BSE cows ? it was shown long ago in studies at Mission Texas that experimental transmission of USA Scrapie to USA Bovine, DID NOT LOOK LIKE UK BSE. so again, in short, why would human mad cow in the USA look like human mad cow in the UK i.e. the (nvCJD). however, I believe that BSE has been in the USA untested and undocumented for years. why on earth then does the USDA refuse to allow creekstone or anyone else test their product? simple, if you don't look/test, you don't find.


please see full text ;

A novel human disease with abnormal prion protein sensitive to protease (prionopathy)

HUMAN and ANIMAL TSE Classifications i.e. mad cow disease and the UKBSEnvCJD only theory JUNE 2008

U.S. slams door on revising S. Korea beef import pact

June 11, 2008, 10:14PM

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

OIE Recognition of the BSE Status of Members RESOLUTION No. XXI (Adopted by the International Committee of the OIE on 27 May 2008)

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Export Requirements for the Republic of Korea IMPORT HEALTH REQUIREMENTS FOR U.S. BEEF AND BEEF PRODUCTS

Why Americans, As Well as Koreans, Should Be Worried About Mad Cow Tainted USA Beef

By Terry S. Singeltary Sr. May 15, 2008

Straight to the Source

Web Note: This is an important commentary by Terry S. Singeltary Sr., on a recent Business Week story on the controversy in South Korea over their government's lifting on the ban on conventional (non-organic) beef, despite the fact that the USDA is still allowing slaughterhouse waste and blood and manure to be fed to cows, and refusing to test all cows at slaughter. See the Mad Cow section of the OCA website for in-depth information. Terry is a regular blogger on the OCA website on Mad Cow issues.

Ronnie Cummins

One Korean official says the probability of a human being catching a mad cow disease by eating U.S. beef is like the one of a golf player scoring a hole-in-one and then being killed by lightning.

this is typical BSe. you here industry groups comment 'your more likely to get hit by a car than die from CJD'. well, maybe so, but my mother and many more did not die from getting hit by a car, they died from CJD, my mothers being the hvCJD (confirmed), and my neighbors mother died from CJD (confirmed). the UKBSEnvCJD _only_ theory is incorrect. there are more strains of mad cow than the UK BSE in beef to nvCJD in humans in the UK. The deception by the USDA, FDA, and the Bush administration about mad cow disease, CJD, and all Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy over the past 8 years have been outrageous, to a point of being criminal. I am vested in nothing, but the truth.

snip...see full text ;

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Concerned Americans against Mad Cow Disease STATEMENT OF SOLIDARITY with Koreans May 13, 2008


Friday, June 20, 2008



Terry S. Singeltary Sr. P.O. Box 42 Bacliff, Texas USA 77518

No comments: